[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: DOCBOOK: Re: marking up keycaps according to their semantics
i didn't mean to make a big issue out of this; i'm satisfied with the current proposal, but let me just try to explain what i was talking about -- it might make sense, it might not. currently, a key cap is written as <keycap>x</keycap>. this seems to suggest that a keycap is, by default, of type "literal", if i can call it that. and its content is "x". so far, so good? (one might even go as far as to suggest that the above really represents the element <keycap type="literal">x</keycap>, where obviously i am *inventing* the mythical "type" attribute, and making it the default.) so how would one represent a *non-literal* key? extending the above, perhaps as <keycap type="function">Escape</keycap>, or something to that effect. in writing it this way, i'm trying to separate the *kind* of keystroke from its *content*, because i see those two pieces of information as, in some way, orthogonal. now the above is pretty darn wordy, but one can condense it by, perhaps, redefining keycap to not need any content at all: <keycap literal="x"/> <keycap function="escape"/> this, at least, is a consistent definition of a keycap -- it has to specify both a *type* of key, and its associated content (that is, the attribute and its value). i also notice that the definition of a keycap, according to 2.0.8, is "the *text* printed on a key on the keyboard" (my emphasis). notice that this isn't strictly true anymore, since what might be displayed could be something other than text. anyway, i realize i'm being thoroughly anal retentive, so i'll just shut up now, and whole-heartedly support whatever gets added. rday
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]